Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh, Mr. Amit Sinha and Ms. Shriya Sharma, Advs v. MUKTA SRIVASTAVA ORS on 17 Mar 2025

Judgment

1. By this writ petition, the Union of India1 calls into question the correctness of order dated 20 February 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal2 in OA 1645/20183, and order dated 17 November 2020 passed by the Tribunal in RA 55/2020, whereby the 1 “UOI” hereinafter 2 “the Tribunal” hereinafter 3 Mukta Srivastava & others v UOI & others Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:17.03.2025 13:12:42 WP (C) 3303/2021 UOI sought review of the order dated 20 February 2020. The Tribunal has allowed the OA in part and has dismissed the RA.

2. We have heard Mr. R.V. Sinha for the UOI, Mr. Anil Singal for Respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. Akarsh Sharma for Respondents 9 and 10. Facts

3. We may note, at the outset, that the prayer in OA 1645/2018 appears to suffer from a typographical error, as it seeks quashing of the “final Seniority List dated 16 May 2014 and Memorandum dated 27 June 2016”, whereas no such Seniority List or Memorandum forms part of the record. The challenge is actually to a revised Seniority List dated 19 December 2017, issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs4, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance for the grade of Chemical Examiner-II5 the Central Revenues Control Laboratory6. The impugned order of the Tribunal

4. There were five applicants before the Tribunal, of which

Applicant 1 was Mukta Srivastava, who is Respondent 1 in the present writ petition. There were five private respondents before the Tribunal, of which the first private respondent was Respondent 4 Ajay Kumar Singh, who is Respondent 6 in the present writ petition. Respondents 1 to 5, therefore, were the applicants before the Tribunal and 4 “CBEC” hereinafter 5 “CE-II” hereinafter 6 “CRCL” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:17.03.2025 13:12:42 WP (C) 3303/2021 Respondents 6 to 10 were the private respondents before the Tribunal. They shall be referred to, hereinafter, as “Mukta Srivastava etc.” and “Ajay Kumar Singh etc.” respectively.

5. Mukta Srivastava etc. were working as Chemical Examiner-I7, at the time when they petitioned the Tribunal. They had been promoted as CE-I in 2015, on the basis of a Seniority List of CE-II published by the CBEC on 29 January 2014, reflecting the seniority of CE-IIs as on 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2013.

6. On 19 December 2017, the CBEC issued a revised Seniority List of CE-II, superseding the earlier Seniority List of 29 January

2014. The seniority of Mukta Srivastava etc. in the revised Seniority List of 19 December 2017, was lower than their seniority position as reflected in the Seniority List of 29 January 2014. The CBEC was also proposing to constitute a review Departmental Promotion Committee8, to review the promotion of CE-II to CE-I which had taken place in 2015 on the basis of the earlier Seniority List of 29 January 2014. In other words, the fate of the promotion of Mukta Srivastava etc. to CE-I, already granted in 2015, also hung in the balance.

7. In these circumstances, Mukta Srivastava etc. approached the Tribunal by way of OA 1645/2018, challenging the revised Seniority List dated 19 December 2017 and contending that the CBEC could not have revised, thereby, the seniority position as reflected in the Signature Not Verified 7 “CE-I” hereinafter 8 “DPC” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:17.03.2025 13:12:42 WP (C) 3303/2021 Seniority List dated 29 January 2014. The proposal to conduct a review DPC, on the basis of the revised Seniority List of 19 December 2017, was also challenged. It was contended that the CBEC had no justifiable cause to revise the promotions to CE-I of Mukta Srivastava etc., which had already taken place in 2015, based on the Seniority List of 29 January 2014.

8. In the counter-affidavit filed by way of response to the OA, the UOI contended that the revised Seniority List dated 19 December 2017 had been issued in compliance with the direction of a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 18 December 2014 in Bhuwan Ram v UOI9. As such, it was submitted that the prayers of Mukta Srivastava etc. lacked merit.

9. The impugned order dated 20 February 2020, of the Tribunal, adjudicates these rival claims. Paras 6 to 10 of the order of the Tribunal read thus: The various facts mentioned above are borne out by record. “6. The applicants were assigned certain places in the seniority list dated 29.01.2014, and they were also promoted to the post of CE-1 on that basis. In the covering letter for the revised seniority list dated 19.12.2017, it is mentioned that the draft seniority list dated 22.12.2016 was circulated, and thereafter the final seniority list is being published in respect of the seniority list, referable to the years 2004, 2008, 2009 and 2011 to 2014. However, the basis for that is not indicated.

7. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have made an extensive reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 6435/2002 and 4396/2008. The relief in that Writ Petition, in turn, was granted on the basis of the judgment of Signature Not Verified 9 MANU/DE/3958/2014 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:17.03.2025 13:12:42 WP (C) 3303/2021 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R.Parmar10. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- “26. For the above reasons, we find no merit in WP(C) No. 6345/2002. The same is rejected. WP(C) No. 4396/2008 has to succeed. The findings and reasoning given in OA No. 1694/2006 are, accordingly, unsustainable and are set aside. The UOI is directed to calculate the seniority of the direct recruits and promotes afresh in the light of the orders of this Court in and in the light of the decision in Parmar (supra) within ten weeks. WP(C) No. 4396/2008 is, accordingly, allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.” It is no doubt true that in N.R. Parmar's case, a principle 8. was laid to the effect that in case the direct recruitment process is delayed for any reason, the candidates selected in the process cannot be denied of the benefit of their seniority vis-a-vis the promotees of the same panel year. However, that judgment was in K. revisited by Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v Ningam Siro & Ors., Civil Appeal No.8833-8835/201911, and their Lordships specifically overruled it. In Para 40, it was observed that the inter se seniority, which is already decided, on the basis of the judgment in N.R. Parmar's case be not disturbed. the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently

9. We find a typical situation, obtaining in the instant case. The revised seniority list, no doubt, was published. However, the resultant revision of promotions which have already taken place, was not done. The OA was filed at a time when the respondents were about to revisit the promotion of the applicants. Therefore, even while honouring the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case that seniority list, which is already prepared in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in N.R. Parmar, shall not be disturbed, the promotions, which have already been extended to the applicants, cannot, equally be disturbed. It is now for the respondents to examine the steps to be taken in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh.

10. We accordingly allow the OA in part, by directing that the promotion of the applicants to the post of CE-I shall not be disturbed on the basis of the revised seniority list dated 19.12.2017, and it is for the respondents to take the necessary steps in accordance with law, regarding fixation of the seniority in the post Signature Not Verified